Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2017 May/Jun;66(3):222-230.
doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000192.

Validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Screener in Adolescents and Young Adults With and Without Congenital Heart Disease

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Screener in Adolescents and Young Adults With and Without Congenital Heart Disease

Nancy A Pike et al. Nurs Res. 2017 May/Jun.

Abstract

Background: Cognitive deficits are common, long-term sequelae in children and adolescents with congenital heart disease (CHD) who have undergone surgical palliation. However, there is a lack of a validated brief cognitive screening tool appropriate for the outpatient setting for adolescents with CHD. One candidate instrument is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) questionnaire.

Objective: The purpose of the research was to validate scores from the MoCA against the General Memory Index (GMI) of the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, 2nd Edition (WRAML2), a widely accepted measure of cognition/memory, in adolescents and young adults with CHD.

Methods: We administered the MoCA and the WRAML2 to 156 adolescents and young adults ages 14-21 (80 youth with CHD and 76 healthy controls who were gender and age matched). Spearman's rank order correlations were used to assess concurrent validity. To assess construct validity, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences in scores in youth with CHD and the healthy control group. Receiver operating characteristic curves were created and area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were also calculated.

Results: The MoCA median scores in the CHD versus healthy controls were (23, range 15-29 vs. 28, range 22-30; p < .001), respectively. With the screening cutoff scores at <26 points for the MoCA and 85 for GMI (<1 SD, M = 100, SD = 15), the CHD versus healthy control groups showed sensitivity of .96 and specificity of .67 versus sensitivity of .75 and specificity of .90, respectively, in the detection of cognitive deficits. A cutoff score of 26 on the MoCA was optimal in the CHD group; a cutoff of 25 had similar properties except for a lower negative predictive value. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% CI) for the MoCA was 0.84 (95% CI [0.75, 0.93], p < .001) and 0.84 (95% CI [0.62, 1.00], p = .02) for the CHD and controls, respectively.

Discussion: Scores on the MoCA were valid for screening to detect cognitive deficits in adolescents and young adults aged 14-21 with CHD when a cutoff score of 26 is used to differentiate youth with and without significant cognitive impairment. Future studies are needed in other adolescent disease groups with known cognitive deficits and healthy populations to explore the generalizability of validity of MoCA scores in adolescents and young adults.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Relationship between Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning 2, General Memory Index (WRAML2 GMI) scores in youth with congenital heart disease and healthy controls. The Spearman rank order correlation was high in both groups (rS = .77, p < .001).
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Receiver-operating characteristic curves disclose diagnostic accuracy of various cut points on the MoCA compared to the GMI cut point of ≤ 85 for youth with CHD (Panel A) and healthy controls (Panel B). In the CHD group, AUC = .84; p <.001 and in the healthy control group, AUC = .84; p = .02).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ballweg JA, Wernovsky G, Gaynor JW. Neurodevelopmental outcomes following congenital heart surgery. Pediatric Cardiology. 2007;28:126–133. doi:10.1007/s00246-006-1450-9. - PubMed
    1. Bellinger DC, Rivkin MJ, DeMaso D, Robertson RL, Stopp C, Dunbar-Masterson C, Newburger JW. Adolescent with tetralogy of Fallot: Neuropsychological assessment and structural brain imaging. Cardiology in the Young. 2015;25:338–347. doi:10.1017/S1047951114000031. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bellinger DC, Wypij D, Rivkin MJ, DeMaso DR, Robertson RL, Dunbar-Masterson C, Newburger JW. Adolescents with d-transposition of the great arteries corrected with the arterial switch procedure: Neuropsychological assessment and structural brain imaging. Circulation. 2011;124:1361–1369. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.026963. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bezdicek O, Majerova V, Novak M, Nikolai T, Ruzicka E, Roth J. Validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the detection of cognitive dysfunction in Huntington’s disease. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult. 2013;20:33–40. doi:10.1080/09084282.2012.670158. - PubMed
    1. Bornholt LJ, Ajersch S, Fisher IH, Markham RH, Ouvier RA. Cognitive screening for children and adolescents: General limits or ceiling effects? Journal of Child Neurology. 2010;25:567–571. doi:10.1177/0883073809352686. - PubMed